Irish UN Troops in Lebanon: Statement by Minister.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

Since the series of events over a week ago which led to a number of clashes involving troops serving with the United Nations Interim Force in the Lebanon, and increased tension in the Southern Lebanon generally, the Government have been following developments closely. The Government have been seriously concerned by recent developments and have taken a number of steps in this connection. Before I comment further on the situation I should perhaps recall a number of points relating to the Force which are already known to the Dáil.

Two years ago the Government decided, at the request of the Secretary General of the United Nations, to send a contingent of the Defence Forces to serve with UNIFIL which had been established by decision of the Security Council. This decision was approved by the Dáil. Replacement contingents have since been dispatched at six-monthly intervals.

UNIFIL was established with the aim of ensuring Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon and restoring the authority of the Lebanese Government in the area. In accordance with the terms of reference approved by the Security Council, the Force was, among other things, to use its best efforts to prevent the recurrence of fighting and to ensure that its area of operation is not utilised for hostile activity of any kind. The Force was not to use force except in self-defence, the latter including resistance to attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate.

The Israelis, when they completed their withdrawal, handed over a strip of territory North of the border to forces led by Major Haddad and UNIFIL has not been able to exercise effective authority in this area. These so-called de facto forces have been supported militarily and financially by Israel.

The Irish battalion is located in the south-east of the area under UNIFIL control and is bordered to the south and east by territory controlled by the de facto forces. These forces have been attempting to extend their area of control by harrassing the local population and the UN Force and by endeavouring to establish positions in the area under UNIFIL control.

The events since 6 April have been the subject of two special reports to the Security Council, copies of which I am arranging to have placed in the Dáil Library. I do not intend, therefore, to outline them in detail but rather to mention the salient points in so far as the Irish contingent were concerned. On 6 April last the "de facto” forces endeavoured to set up a position at At Tiri in the Irish battalion area and were resisted by Irish UN forces. The UN brought in reinforcements from other units. Despite the fact that negotiations under way were due to be resumed on the morning of 7 April the “de facto” forces opened fire. Private Griffin was seriously injured. Nine Irish soldiers were taken prisoner by the “de facto” forces. The “de facto” forces in At Tiri remained surrounded by UN Forces. Subsequently on 8 April the Irish soldiers were released.

In the following days Israeli forces established themselves in the surrounding area but withdrew from the Irish area by 12 April.

The situation in At Tiri remained tense during these days. On 12 April the "de facto” forces compelled women and children to harass the UN forces and a confrontation developed. A firefight between “de facto” and UN forces developed in the course of which a Fijian UN soldier received fatal injuries and one member of the “de facto” forces was killed. UN fire was not directed at civilians. Subsequently “de facto” personnel detained by the UN were exchanged for four Irish soldiers who had been taken from an observation post as hostages. UN headquarters at Naquora, in which some Irish personnel are stationed, was subjected to heavy shelling but there were no serious injuries.

The situation in the area is now quiet but tense, and UNIFIL Command has taken certain precautionary measures in the light of threats that have been made.

UNIFIL is, of course, under UN Command and operates under the mandate laid down by the Security Council and in accordance with the terms of reference proposed by the Secretary General which were approved by the Security Council. Within these guidelines operational questions are matters for the Force Command under the overall direction of the Secretary-General. The Government have endeavoured to assist the Secretary-General in any way possible with efforts which he has been making to bring about an improvement in the situation.

On the instructions of the Government, our Acting Permanent Representative in New York made known our great concern about developments to the Secretary-General and has been discussing with the Secretary-General whether any improvements are possible in the existing arrangements for the Force. He has also maintained contact with other troop contributors.

At the diplomatic level, the Government's efforts were in the first instance directed towards securing the release of the nine soldiers detained. Subsequently they have been directed towards seeking an improvement in the situation generally. As Deputies may be aware the Security Council is currently discussing the question and, on my instructions, the Acting Permanent Representative yesterday addressed the Security Council and conveyed the great concern of the Government at recent developments. I am arranging to have a copy of his statement placed in the Dáil Library also.

The Government also instructed the Irish Ambassador to Israel, who is resident in Athens, to travel to Israel where he has had discussions with the Israeli Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence and at the Foreign Ministry. The assistance of other concerned countries has also been sought.

The Government believe that UNIFIL have in the past two years worked both for the benefit of the people in their area and have been most useful in promoting the overall objective of the maintenance of peace in the Middle East generally. It has been the view of the Secretary-General and of disinterested observers that, although the Force could not in the circumstances be completely successful in carrying out their mandate, the situation would have been very much worse without them. It was with this in mind that the Government recently agreed to despatch a further replacement contingent to the Force.

When the Government originally agreed to the request of the Secretary General they knew that the task of the force would be a difficult one and that the mandate would be difficult to carry out. We felt it to be our duty, however, to respond to the request and to maintain the proud Irish record of involvement in UN peacekeeping.

Irish participation in UNIFIL was based on the clear understanding that the governments concerned accepted the establishment of the force and would give them the necessary co-operation in carrying out their difficult mandate. Unfortunately we have increasing reason to question whether this most basic condition is being met.

The Secretary-General has consistently sought to obtain the full co-operation of Israel in enabling the force to carry out their duties. He has, however, had to report that this has not always been given to a sufficient degree. The Government have regularly over the past two years in contacts with Israel also pressed strongly for its assistance in enabling the Force to function effectively and without interference.

The Israeli Government, while admitting that they have influence over Major Haddad, have denied that they have control over his actions. They have made it clear that they opposed firing at and shelling of units of UNIFIL and have indicated that they would use their influence over the de facto forces to endeavour to prevent this.

I can assure the House that the Government will continue to keep developments under close review. If the full co-operation of all parties is not forthcoming to enable the force to carry out its mandate effectively and without interference then the most serious question as to its effectiveness and value must inevitably arise. The Government will continue actively, through diplomatic channels, to assist the Secretary-General in seeking such improvements as are possible. I would appeal to all Governments which have an interest in the preservation of peace in Southern Lebanon and believe that the force should be maintained to use their influence in any quarter which may be necessary to this end.

I wish to place on record—and I am sure the House will join with me in this—our admiration for the way in which the officers and men of the Defence Forces have carried out their duties with UNIFIL and our confidence that they will continue to do so in the impartial and dedicated manner for which they have rightly won praise in many quarters.

I regret to inform the House that I have just learned that Private Griffin died last night. I know that the House will want to join with me in conveying our sympathy and condolences to his family and in paying tribute to his contribution to the UN Force in the preservation of peace.

Mr. Creed

I join the Minister in sending my Party's condolences to the family and relatives of the late Private Griffin. It was known in the past few days that he was gravely ill and that he had taken a turn for the worst. I am very sorry to hear that it has come to the worst. I sincerely hope that the sympathy of this House will be of some consolation to his family and relatives.

I should like to apologise for the absence of Deputy O'Keeffe who is unavoidably absent. I am deputising for him at last minute notice. It is a pity that somebody like him is not here because he has had experience of being on the ground in the Lebanon and is more conversant with the situation there than am I. Be that as it may I shall be brief. I welcome the opportunity afforded this House by the Taoiseach to clarify at least in part what is regarded here as a very confused situation. My only criticism of the Minister's speech is that it has not clarified the situation sufficiently, and has not indicated what action it is proposed to take in relation to the continuing conflict or harassment of UNIFIL Forces and particularly the Irish troops. Like the Minister I want to pay a tribute from this side of the House—something I did some time ago—to our forces, to our Army, who have contributed not alone in the Lebanon under most difficult circumstances but in other areas throughout this troubled world, who have played a vital role in the preservation of peace and are renowned and known by people the world over for their efficiency, dedication and professional approach to the job assigned to them. From what I can ascertain I believe that their role there is difficult because of a number of factors—their terms of reference, their mandate, the terrain, the strategic position in that terrain the Irish troops have occupied, to a certain extent restricted by their mandate, the harassment caused by opposing factions and the fact that some UNIFIL forces, and particularly the Irish contingent are, so to speak, caught in the middle.

I can recall the contributions made when this motion was debated in this House in May 1978. They were few. I think a number of Members of this House did not understand the problems that would arise. I would draw the attention of the House to the debate on that occasion, on 9 May 1978, reported in the Official Report of that date at columns 600 and 601 where the Leader of this Party, Deputy FitzGerald, drew the attention of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs to the uncertainty and obscure mandate under which the Irish troops were working in the Lebanon. Deputy FitzGerald questioned that mandate.

He said he was not satisfied—as can be confirmed from a reading of the debate to which I have referred—and pointed out that the peacekeeping authority would be undermined and could be discredited because of the confusion in carrying out that mandate. To some extent I am afraid that the fears expressed then have been justified. Some parties in the Lebanon have refused to accept the United Nations authority, in which the Israelis, through militia forces, or the de facto forces, as the Minister said, through Major Haddad, conduct a campaign with impunity throughout the area to such an extent that the Irish troops have been forced, in the last few days—and I thought the Minister would have referred to this—to pull back from their operational area. It gave the impression of being a kind of retreat. This is a serious matter—where there are forces of that sort acting illegally, within that area, where they can commandeer lorries and jeeps belonging to the UNIFIL Forces there.

Whilst the Lebanese Government and the PLO agreed to accept the mandate of UNIFIL on that occasion, how is it that a force of somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 christian militia men were left well placed to harass UN troops, and could promote a re-occupation of the disputed territories by Israelis? That is an area which must be clarified. Major Haddad moved tanks into a post overlooking the Irish camp, a very strategic area.

The Minister should now have the mandate clarified, a request made initially by this Parliament. If possible he should have clarified the Israeli-Haddad alliance and also some element of public opinion here which it must be said also has gathered momentum in recent days—that we should withdraw our troops because of harassment there, because the contribution they are making, under difficult circumstances, is not appreciated by the people, a situation in which they are prepared to risk their lives, as has been illustrated by the death of Private Griffin. It should be clearly stated by this House, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs—that is why I put a question to the Taoiseach along with Deputy Barry and Deputy FitzGerald, which was transferred to the Minister; I am not quibbling about that—that we have an international role to play in the preservation of peace in this world, that we have done it with distinction and honour; that our Army have carried out the duties assigned to them without fear or favour; that we are not in the Lebanon in conquest or taking part with any one of the divisive groups there but that we are there with the sole objective of preserving peace.

What is disturbing also is the campaign of false propaganda being carried out by the Israeli press, by the Israelis, in relation to the operations of UNIFIL, with particular reference to the Irish contingent there, scandalous propaganda. The Minister should ensure that that is at least counteracted and does not continue, because that sort of thing will undermine the whole purpose of the Defence Forces there, and of UNIFIL, in the difficult, if not impossible, task assigned to them. Quite recently the Leader of this Party was on an American tour—when he met many people influential politically and otherwise and a source very sympathetic and influential to the Israeli cause made it perfectly clear publicly, in his presence, that the contribution made by the Irish contingent in the Lebanon and throughout other troubled areas, was professional and was regarded by everybody concerned as being top-class. Still this campaign of propaganda has been waged against them, with particular reference to the Irish contingent.

There is a question of clarifying that mandate. There is a question of the troops being in a position where they know exactly what they are doing. Are we equipped to meet and combat people like the Haddad troops who are highly trained and efficient and have all facilities available to them? Are our troops fully equipped? Can we meet this sort of confrontation? Have we brought pressure to bear, through the channels open to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government, on the Israelis to lay off and accept the role which our troops and the UNIFIL troops are there to carry out? Have we contacted the Governments of the Nine, the Committee on Political Co-operation within the Nine which should be used? Have we contacted the Governments which have contributed to UNIFIL and are supplying troops to make sure that pressure is brought to bear before the situation becomes worse?

I should like to thank and pay tribute to the departmental staff at Headquarters who are free to give information on the position. To anybody who contacted them they gave the up-to-date situation. However, that situation is still tense, and it requires that red tape of any sort should not inhibit the Minister or the Government in trying to have the position clarified before it deteriorates further.

I am only deputising for our spokesman on Foreign Affairs and I wish to be brief, but I should say that statements made outside the House nationally or internationally in regard to the situation in the Lebanon should be well informed. Very often, inadvertently or otherwise, statements are made that could make that delicate situation even more delicate. It is a matter about which people should not speak glibly. The troops there have a difficult role to play. They are doing it well and any contribution made or taking of sides or statements that are not well informed could do untold damage.

Mr. Cluskey

On behalf of the Labour Party I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister on the death of Private Griffin. This was a very tragic situation where a man in his very early twenties lost his life in what I would regard as the noblest cause one could serve, the cause of world peace. On behalf of the Labour Party I wish to express very sincere sympathy to the family of Private Griffin and our deep appreciation of his sacrifice. I hope they will find some consolation in the fact that it was in such a noble cause he died.

The main concern of all Members of the House is the safety of Irish troops serving with UNIFIL in the Lebanon. The present situation there is causing grave concern to us, but it must be said that it is not a situation that developed overnight. It has been developing for a considerable time. Last July, after visiting the Irish troops serving with UNIFIL in the Lebanon and having observed and heard from the Irish troops serving there what was taking place, I came back and in an endeavour not to cause unnecessary anxiety or concern to families of troops serving in the Lebanon I sought a private meeting with the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Kennedy, and the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Molloy. At that meeting I tried to convey to them the serious concern felt by our troops and senior Army officers and the officers of other nationalities serving there that, while the de facto forces under Major Haddad had up to then been shelling by way of harassment both the local population and UNIFIL forces including the Irish troops, the situation had begun to change and they were now in fact shelling for effect. I offered the Ministers a very substantial list of shells or other types of explosives, thousands of rounds of ammunition used against Irish positions and troops, but there was a refusal to accept the fact that Major Haddad's forces had changed their tactics and were firing for effect.

I visited one Irish company in which a young officer serving with it is a son of a Member of this House and I found that a shell had landed on the roof of the building they occupied. Even that did not seem to convey what was clearly the frame of mind and opinion of Irish military personnel serving there: that there had been this very serious change. Very reluctantly, as a result of not being able to convey this opinion at a private meeting, I raised the matter publicly in this House. What I said then is on record. It is somewhat regrettable that a more stern position was not adopted with the Israeli Government in particular.

Because of the mandate it is important to look at one or two factors which our troops serving in the Lebanon have to cope with on the ground. First, I quote the words of the Secretary General of the United Nations when he was renewing the mandate that would operate from 13 January to 8 June 1979. Speaking about the renewal of the mandate he said:

... I have no alternative but to make this recommendation. I must also express my view that UNIFIL cannot continue to function without certain essential conditions being fulfilled.

He describes those conditions:

1. An adequate security zone around the UNIFIL headquarters in Naquora is perhaps the most immediate of those.

He was speaking in January 1979. What is the position around UNIFIL headquarters in Naquora at present? He was talking about a safety zone around the headquarters of the UN forces in which there are Irish personnel. Almost immediately outside the main gate of the headquarters the de facto forces, as they are described, have a road block. One can sit in the officers' mess or dining room and hear heavy military vehicles, tanks or troop carriers or whatever else—I am not very familiar with military terms—rolling past. One drives in a UN vehicle accompanied by Irish Army personnel and one passes by jeeps in which the same de facto forces are sitting armed to the teeth almost immediately outside the main gate of the UNIFIL headquarters in the Lebanon.

The Irish troops are serving in the hills some distance from headquarters. If an Irish Army officer wants to go from headquarters to the troops on the front line he has to do the following. He must drive in a convoy because when an officer went in a single car it was hijacked by the de facto forces, although the car was occupied and driven by Irish troops. I made a journey from headquarters to the front line and passed through six checkpoints. Three checkpoints were manned by UN forces, one by the PLO and the other two were manned by the de facto forces. Irish and other UN troops travelling in convoys in UN vehicles are subjected to harassment and search by these de facto forces. That is very difficult for trained military personnel legitiately engaged in UNIFIL operations to tolerate. But these people have put up with this impossible situation with great restraint.

When we got to the operational area there were a number of strategically placed observation posts manned by four or five Irish Army personnel. To relieve these personnel or to supply them with food, equipment or other requirements, it was necessary for the Irish personnel serving with the UN to get permission from Major Haddad and his de facto forces. They had to tell the de facto forces in advance the time, the vehicles to be used, what they were carrying, and the number of personnel who would be travelling. Not infrequently the de facto forces decide at the last minute that they are not prepared to allow the Irish troops to pass their checkpoints to relieve the soldiers manning the observation posts. They are turned back and are told to reapply for permission to travel to the front line. Our troops are left in those isolated posts, cut off except for the use of a field telephone or something of that nature.

Those are the circumstances in which our troops and other national contingents serving with UNIFIL in the Lebanon are trying to fulfil this mandate. Let there be no mistake about this—I note there is some ambiguity in the Minister's statement about it—the de facto forces under Major Haddad are directly employed and responsible to the Israeli Government. There is no doubt about that and there should be no ambiguity in the Minister's statement about it either. If I remember correctly, the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Molloy, when visiting the Middle East area had a discussion with General Wiseman, Israeli Minister for Defence. He acknowledged publicly that the de facto forces under Major Haddad were subject to and operating under the direction of the Israeli Parliament. Do not let there be any ambiguity about that, particularly in the circumstances in which our troops are serving at the moment. Do not let a Government Minister gloss over that very unpleasant but very vital fact.

Deputy Creed referred to a propaganda campaign. I never had contact with armies nor had any desire to join an army and I know very little about military operations, but I want to tell the House without any reservations of the very good and impressive relationship the Irish troops serving in the Lebanon have with the local population. If a Member is visiting another country it is always possible to lay on a good show but there is no way anybody could stage the very obvious trust, confidence and friendship that existed between our troops on the ground and the local population, particularly the younger people and children, in the Lebanon. As Deputy Creed said, a scandalous propaganda campaign against our troops has been carried out very effectively by the Israelis and that campaign has not been effectively counteracted by us.

Last July it was customary for our troops to go into Israel on weekend leave. At that time there was a growing reluctance among our troops to go into Israel because of the feeling that had been generated in Israel against the UN forces operating in the Lebanon, and in particular against the Irish troops. I am not taking from the excellent medical attention which the Israelis gave to our people who were injured. I have no doubt that Private Griffin got the best medical attention.

Do not let any Member have any doubts where the direct responsibility lies for the operations of Major Haddad and his de facto forces. It lies directly with a country with which we have formal diplomatic relations. What have we done about this? I raised this matter last July and pressed for certain measures to be taken. I identified the role Major Haddad is playing there and to whom he is responsible. We protested but how effective have our protests been? How seriously were they taken? In diplomatic circles there must be some point at which a government can indicate their serious displeasure at the activities of another government with which they have diplomatic relations. Was the Israeli ambassador ever summoned by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and a formal protest made? There is no indication in anything I heard or read that such a step was taken. Surely the safety of our troops and the possibility of being able to fulfil the mandate contributing to world peace is serious enough to justify the highest possible diplomatic protest being made publicly? Why was it not made? Our troops and the public are entitled to ask that question. Even at this late stage will the Minister for Foreign Affairs do it? He should not have any doubt about Israel's role in the present situation. It is only natural that our main concern should be for the safety and welfare of Irish troops.

As well as that we have a wider responsibility. We have a responsibility to the UNIFIL forces serving in the Lebanon irrespective of what nationality they may be because they are serving the same cause. There are forces operating in the Lebanon other than the de facto forces. A look at the map of the UNIFIL operation to see where the different contingents are placed will show that our people have this difficulty with Major Haddad because they are placed up against where he is. Another national contingent are placed up against the PLO who also hold and control territory within the Lebanon.

We have heard this morning that we have lost one of our troops. One of our young men has died in the service of this cause. The Fijian forces—who, I noticed when I was there, had an excellent relationship with the Irish forces serving in the same organisation—have lost no less than seven of their soldiers who were killed by the PLO. It is reasonable to pose the question: is it appropriate that in those circumstances, where we have our own troops serving side by side with troops from another country in the one organisation in the one noble cause, while the Fijians have had seven of their soldiers killed by the PLO, our Minister for Foreign Affairs made a statement some time ago encouraging, to say the least, the activities of the PLO? I do not want to overstate it, but this did not contribute to the welfare and safety of our own troops serving in that area.

A number of things should be done. First of all, the Israeli ambassador accredited to this country should be summoned to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and made aware of not only the Government's concern but the concern of this House and that we will hold them—as we should and are entitled to do—directly responsible for any death or injury of our troops serving with UNIFIL if that death or injury is inflicted by Major Haddad's de facto forces. They pay them, they arm them, they control them and there is no doubt about that. Also, as Irish troops are so often called upon to give their service in this way I suggest, although this was ignored last July, that if an all-party delegation from this House were to be sent, as other European countries send all-party delegtions, to UN sessions we could be directly involved and know what kind of tensions and difficulties are likely to face our troops being called upon in some other part of the world. It is most urgent now that an all-party delegation from this House would be sent out to visit the troops serving in the Lebanon. There are two reasons for this. First of all, it would give an all-party delegation an opportunity of seeing just what our troops have to contend with and under what difficulties they are trying to fulfil their mandate in the Lebanon. It would be very much appreciated and would be a very considerable boost to the morale of the Irish troops who are serving not only this country but also the cause of world peace so well.

Finally, it is known widely that the Israeli army and the Israeli economy are dependent very much on support from the USA. I ask the Minister to tell the House if any direct representation has been made to the US Government with regard to what use the weapons which they are supplying to the State of Israel are being put? Surely they would have a responsibility for the activities of Major Haddad if those activities are facilitated by the supply of arms originating in the US being filtered to him by the Israeli Government. It would be premature at this stage to say that we should not continue with our operation and commitment to the UN and UNIFIL, but unless there is very considerable change in the attitude of the Israeli Government particularly, it is something that this House will have to keep under very close review indeed.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 16 Apr 1980